Originally posted by ChuckerI'm not interested in this petty talk. You're either going to respond to my post, or forget about it.

Your post was petty. You're in no position to blame me for replying to your snarky little post in a petty manner.

Quote:

Originally posted by hmurchison
Bootcamp is going to be our only salvation here for the time being. With that in mind I find that two slot SLI in a Mac Pro has about a %25 chance of being in the computer. But even without that we'll still be able to game. I just don't expect Quad SLI Mac systems to be blasting through games. Reality bites sometimes.

Why should Apple bother converting gamers to the Apple side on Mac OS X when Windows does it better?

The Mac Pro is set to be a boutique PC that runs Windows and its games, no doubt just as quickly as a PC with the same motherboard. This is not Apple handing out money begging developers to make games for OS X; it's Apple saying "you can install Windows on a Mac, and it will run your games incredibly well because the Mac Pro is a high-end PC".

What about those rumors or reports in October that Intel was working on a board with Apple for the Mac Pro (then called the Intel Powermac)? I mean, that sort of implies that this isn't a stock motherboard, unless that report meant that Intel was working on a general mobo that would likely find its way into the Mac Pro...

Originally posted by PlaceboOh wait, you mean to encourage gaming in Mac OS X? I meant in Windows. Few people are going to game in OS X ever again with a nicely specced Mac Pro. Mac OS X isn't really made for gaming; Windows is. The Mac Pro is set to be a boutique PC that runs Windows and its games, no doubt just as quickly as a PC with the same motherboard. This is not Apple handing out money begging developers to make games for OS X; it's Apple saying "you can install Windows on a Mac, and it will run your games incredibly well because the Mac Pro is a high-end PC".

Originally posted by ZachPruckowskiWhat about those rumors or reports in October that Intel was working on a board with Apple for the Mac Pro (then called the Intel Powermac)? I mean, that sort of implies that this isn't a stock motherboard, unless that report meant that Intel was working on a general mobo that would likely find its way into the Mac Pro...

Again That's what I'm talking about. I don't think Apple is going to have it's usual update. They are playing a whole new game, and if they don't at least try to capitalize on some of what they can now offer they are going to be out some seriously big money. I think the ability to play windows games is the most appealing aspect to the majority of Mac users, and potential Mac users. I don't really play games at all anymore, but I'm not blind, and I do see the potential, and gaming is just one aspect they can use. I'm sure it will be a subtle thing, but it will also be a new era.

Originally posted by hmurchisonactually Chucker is thinking critically.

Some of us older folks have followed Apple before the Macintosh even existed.

At times Apple would offer cursory support for gaming but it always felt like a "back burner" thing. We remember the game sprockets that eventually got old and decrepit. Thus when Chucker says the Mac Pro isn't made for gamers he's right. Apple isn't going to prevent gaming but they don't exactly encourage it either.

Bootcamp is going to be our only salvation here for the time being. With that in mind I find that two slot SLI in a Mac Pro has about a %25 chance of being in the computer. But even without that we'll still be able to game. I just don't expect Quad SLI Mac systems to be blasting through games. Reality bites sometimes.

Absolutely!

In the beginning, Apple was trying to be taken seriously, so they discouraged games.

After that, they fidgeted about it. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I Rremember game sprockets well. There were many special bits of software apple came up with, particularly in System 9, to make it easier for game developers. But, Apple always lost interest after a while.

Since games have been driving PC sales for years, Apple has had to think about it again. But they were too involved with getting OS X out the door, then advanced enough to stay alive. The Mac game market has gone the way of Apple's marketshare.

Intel Mac's are likely the only way Apple will gain sales from gamers.

While I also think that Apple cares little, publicly, about gamers buying, and using Apple's towers for games, I think that internally, they welcome it.

After all, Alienware's machines cost just as much as Apple's when decked out. A lot uglier, of course! I don't know how these gamers will deal with that aspect here in MacLand. But, I assume they will continue to deck their machines out with neon and flashing LED's as before. I just hope they don't feel the need to cut the cases up as well!

Where does it say intel does not support SLI period? And why would that effect Apple. Apple is still calling all the shots on their computers. intel is their manufacturer, and technology advisor, or whatever on the board, but intel didn't buy them. if Apple says we want two full speed 16x PCI-E lanes in there Apple will get it. It's still their computer.

Originally posted by onlookerWhere does it say intel does not support SLI period? And why would that effect Apple. Apple is still calling all the shots on their computers. intel is their manufacturer, and technology advisor, or whatever on the board, but intel didn't buy them. if Apple says we want two full speed 16x PCI-E lanes in there Apple will get it. It's still their computer.

I agree with that, what Apple wants, Apple gets

Hopefully they will go for dual 16x slots with extra spacing to avoid slot loss

Originally posted by onlookerWhere does it say intel does not support SLI period? And why would that effect Apple. Apple is still calling all the shots on their computers. intel is their manufacturer, and technology advisor, or whatever on the board, but intel didn't buy them. if Apple says we want two full speed 16x PCI-E lanes in there Apple will get it. It's still their computer.

I don't see what the problem is. Both articles are pretty clear on this., Besides, this is well understood in the PC industry. You don't want to believe it.

You see Intel using an Nvidia chipset? I don't. And I don't think that is is a reasonable assumption to make either

Originally posted by melgrossI don't see what the problem is. Both articles are pretty clear on this., Besides, this is well understood in the PC industry. You don't want to believe it.

You see Intel using an Nvidia chipset? I don't. And I don't think that is is a reasonable assumption to make either

Actually it wasn't clear that's why I asked. I scanned over all pages of the article and didn't notice intel mentioned once. I may have missed it, but when does having dual 16X PCI-E lanes go outside the scope of inels chipset. I would think that when the technology is available all PCI-E lanes would run at full speed. This isn't an Nforce thing, or an Nvidia / intel thing. It's hurdle that Nvidia has strived to leap because of its need to fully support SLI but I don't see it as a thing with a single purpose .

Originally posted by melgrossApple will get what it wants up to a point. That point is where it clashes with what Intel produces. Intel only designs boards with their own chipsets, and at times, ATI's.

If Apple gets what it wants, what happened at IBM and Freescale? They didn't get what they wanted there either.

Are we forgetting so soon?

Excellent point. Everyone acts like apple has unbreakable balls, but if you look at it they're been slapped around quite a bit over the years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.Date the ban will be lifted:...

Originally posted by melgrossApple will get what it wants up to a point. That point is where it clashes with what Intel produces. Intel only designs boards with their own chipsets, and at times, ATI's.

If Apple gets what it wants, what happened at IBM and Freescale? They didn't get what they wanted there either.

Are we forgetting so soon?

What is your example? What did Apple want from IBM - Laptop processors. IBM is in the server, and now, console gaming market, and had no plans to manufacture a laptop processor from the G5 because they couldn't make one cool enough. They tried it, and failed. The only company the were providing this stuff to would have been Apple, and that would not be profitable for them to spend billions of dollars in R&D to supply the laptop processor for a company who's 2% market share's share of laptop processor would have probably equated to about a (point->) .5% share.

I hardly take your argument seriously. because I think Apple didn't stand a chance in getting this done and they already new it when they started using IBM after Motorola blew it. . Intel is another story. They are the worlds leading supplier of semiconductors I believe, and they make numerous kinds of laptop processors so any R&D They do is going to help them in some way or another in the immediate future no matter what.

Originally posted by onlookerActually it wasn't clear that's why I asked. I scanned over all pages of the article and didn't notice intel mentioned once. I may have missed it, but when does having dual 16X PCI-E lanes go outside the scope of inels chipset. I would think that when the technology is available all PCI-E lanes would run at full speed. This isn't an Nforce thing, or an Nvidia / intel thing. It's hurdle that Nvidia has strived to leap because of its need to fully support SLI but I don't see it as a thing with a single purpose .

While the second article doesn't mention Intel directly in this connection, it does say what needs to be said to make it clear. Here is a quote:

"SLI is nifty, but the big problem with it is, well, it's SLI. It requires an SLI motherboard with an nForce chipset. We tend to like Nvidia's motherboard chipsets, but it's still a limiting factor."

"requires an SLI mobo WITH an nForce chipset." It can't be clearer than that.

Then you can go back to the first article, which, by the way, is NOT a rumor, but fact. They merely stated what every PC gamer already knows. Intel does NOT use nVidea chipsets. They do sometimes use those from ATI, when they run short of their own. Crossfire is licensed to Intel, SLI is not.

With two 16 lane slots, you can run two boards at full speed, but it will not support Crossfire, or SLI, unless the chipset does. Both are supported with two 8 lane slots as well. In fact, all of the first Crossfire/SLI solutions used the 8x solution.

Originally posted by onlookerWhat is your example? What did Apple want from IBM - Laptop processors. IBM is in the server, and now, console gaming market, and had no plans to manufacture a laptop processor from the G5 because they couldn't make one cool enough. They tried it, and failed. The only company the were providing this stuff to would have been Apple, and that would not be profitable for them to spend billions of dollars in R&D to supply the laptop processor for a company who's 2% market share's share of laptop processor would have probably equated to about a (point->) .5% share.

I hardly take your argument seriously. because I think Apple didn't stand a chance in getting this done and they already new it when they started using IBM after Motorola blew it. . Intel is another story. They are the worlds leading supplier of semiconductors I believe, and they make numerous kinds of laptop processors so any R&D They do is going to help them in some way or another in the immediate future no matter what.

I really need to post an example? You haven't taken part in the almost infinity of discussions we have had here over the last few years about what IBM and Freescale weren't supplying vs what Apple needed?

Besides, you supplied your own example for me, and explained my position quite well!

Looking at it from the perspective of visual media. Which is a real and lucrative market for Apple unlike gaming. Visual and graphic media companies will have the option of being totally Mac Pro shops.

Apple has chosen to work with Intel on its mother boards. Unlike IBM CPU or Freescale CPU Apple does have the option of making its own motherboards.

In light of this its difficult to see Nvidia allowing SLI to be left out. The company will make its case that Apple needs to use SLI and offer deals on chip sets and graphic cards.

In light of the fact that visual media and graphics companies can become totally Mac Pro shops its difficult to see Apple putting itself in a position where they do not have the option of using SLI at all. Its possible but its not the wisest decision.

Their is a movement in software giving much of the graphics work to the GPU. Autodesk/Discreet has just announced one of its major software suites which previously required Silicon Graphics workstations will work on personal computers. Much of the work will go to the GPU.

Originally posted by TenoBellLooking at it from the perspective of visual media. Which is a real and lucrative market for Apple unlike gaming. Visual and graphic media companies will have the option of being totally Mac Pro shops.

Apple has chosen to work with Intel on its mother boards. Unlike IBM CPU or Freescale CPU Apple does have the option of making its own motherboards.

In light of this its difficult to see Nvidia allowing SLI to be left out. The company will make its case that Apple needs to use SLI and offer deals on chip sets and graphic cards.

In light of the fact that visual media and graphics companies can become totally Mac Pro shops its difficult to see Apple putting itself in a position where they do not have the option of using SLI at all. Its possible but its not the wisest decision.

Their is a movement in software giving much of the graphics work to the GPU. Autodesk/Discreet has just announced one of its major software suites which previously required Silicon Graphics workstations will work on personal computers. Much of the work will go to the GPU.

Its difficult to see why Apple would totally limit its option to SLI.

A lot of this depends on the relationship between Nvidia, ATI, and Intel.

So far, while ATI has been eager to license Crossfire, Nvidia, seen as the frontrunner in the dual card business by virtue of them coming out with it first, has shown no interest. Intel has also to make a move. Apple has little influence here.

If Apple succeeds in forcing Intel to supply chipsets that are not their own, and mobo's that are modified to support a technology from that chipset, can other companies be far behind? Much bigger companies than Apple?

Originally posted by melgrossI really need to post an example? You haven't taken part in the almost infinity of discussions we have had here over the last few years about what IBM and Freescale weren't supplying vs what Apple needed?

Besides, you supplied your own example for me, and explained my position quite well!

My point is you can't compare having a request of intel to requesting something from IBM when it comes asking for anything because IBM wasn't making anything near what Apple was asking for, but intel on the other hand not only makes similar items that Apple is interested in, they make multiple versions of them. Thats my Point. You can't walk up to your peanut suppliers factory, and say I'm pissed becuse you are not willing to supply me with almond butter straight from your factory. That's why I don't understand your point.

No. Gamers like a PC they can fiddle with. Some high-end PCs, such as random crap from AlienWare, fit that bill. An Apple Power Mac does not. An IBM workstation does not. A Sun workstation does not. A Mac Pro likely will not.

Originally posted by TenoBellWhy does it have to be as dramatic as Apple forcing Intel, ATI, and Nvidia to change their business practices?

Why can't it be as simple as Intel helping Apple develop a custom motherboard, Apple requesting SLI on their custom motherboard. Apple could do this on its own.

Apple gaining good deals on Nvidia chipsets because Nvidia would not want to be left out of that fact that media companies can become all Mac shops.

That's what I was saying originally, but every body says it's Apple being pushy. I don't see it that way. I think it's obviously Apples computer, and motherboard, and intel, and Apple are cooperatively designing it, but I don't see either of them as the sole designers. It's a creative partnership. Intel has an Apple team they put together because they are the only PC manufacturer that I am aware of that is actually in house at intel making a product. But what I was saying was if Apple had a specific need in mind their need could easily be met with the cooperation of intel, with their team in conjunction with Apples.
How this turned into such a big deal is beyond me right now. I'm dead tired here falling asleep at the keys.

It's a buzzword. Apple can't afford to miss a buzzword that other computer manufacturers are a part of. Apple will want a SLI or Crossfire solution as at least an option on their computers. Now that they don't have different processors to fall back on, they have to go with what everyone else is going with.

What this comes down to is the fact that a dual-core, 2-drive bay computer without SLI or Crossfire shipping with 512 MB RAM and a 7600 won't fly for $2000 this round.

Originally posted by hmurchisonWell then we need to know the concrete benefits of having a Quad capable graphics solution.

I'm kinda thinking it makes more sense to just toss in a Quadro FX 5500 and call it a day.

I'm not all that hyped about the quad capable SLI right now. It seems a bit overboard to me. The new dual GPU Nvidia card does not even support it yet, and Nvidia says they are in no rush to do so.

I just don't understand why everybody is against the faster full speed PCI-E sots. It seems like natural PC evolution to me. Apple used to be at the forefront of technology, and people that wanted to take advantage of something could using a Mac. They are obviously not at the forefront on this because the rest of the industry has had it for a while (almost two years) now, but Apple is looking like the old PC guy's when it came to adopting USB. It just seems like they have hesitated on something that is a natural progression.

I agree at the moment there is no absolute need for SLI or Crossfire. In many ways it will come down to having software that is able to take advantage of it.

It appears the trend for software is pushing more of the work off onto the GPU. A trend Apple has been going along with OS X and its imaging APIs for real time rendering.

Apple may not adopt SLI. But it leaves itself quite vulnerable selling $2000 to $3000 workstations that are not SLI capable when its competitors will be selling them.

There isn't much the average computer user can do with 64 bit processing but I've heard of several high end Hollywood VFX houses that have bought lots of AMD 64 bit servers and use 64 bit versions of Linux and 64 bit XP.

Its a natural that visual and media content creators would quickly adopt multiple GPU for faster rendering.

For example:

Quote:

At Skywalker Ranch, Lucas now tells people he's going upstairs to JAK to shoot a scene. To a large extent this is made possible because of the 100 proc AMD renderfarm and 64-bit AMD workstations tricked out with the latest Nvidia graphic boards hardware advances that cut Maya renders down to size.

This is a natural market where Apple has an advantage but people will choose something else if Apple does not offer what they need.

edit:

On top of all of that this can be a system that run OS X, Vista, and Linux

Originally posted by onlookerMy point is you can't compare having a request of intel to requesting something from IBM when it comes asking for anything because IBM wasn't making anything near what Apple was asking for, but intel on the other hand not only makes similar items that Apple is interested in, they make multiple versions of them. Thats my Point. You can't walk up to your peanut suppliers factory, and say I'm pissed becuse you are not willing to supply me with almond butter straight from your factory. That's why I don't understand your point.

The problem is that we don't know what Apple and IBM had in their agreements. Jobs referred to the fact that we didn't have a G5 laptop, as an indicator that IBM wasn't up to the job. They did come out with the low power G5 chip, too little, too late. And Freescale wasn't interested at all.

I admit that the situation with Intel is different Apple isn't requiring them to make a chipset just for themselves. But, none of Intel's chipsets support SLI, that's my point. And only some chipsets work with certain cpu's. Onboard graphics or no onboard graphics.

I'm saying that if Apple wants SLI, they will have to design and make their own mobo, Intel won't make it for them, because it isn't one of their products. That's almost like asking Intel to make a board with an AMD socket. Not quite, but the same idea.

Originally posted by TenoBellWhy does it have to be as dramatic as Apple forcing Intel, ATI, and Nvidia to change their business practices?

Why can't it be as simple as Intel helping Apple develop a custom motherboard, Apple requesting SLI on their custom motherboard. Apple could do this on its own.

Apple gaining good deals on Nvidia chipsets because Nvidia would not want to be left out of that fact that media companies can become all Mac shops.

Because Intel isn't in the business of helping to sell Nvidia's products over their own. Intel makes boards with their own chipsets, and sometimes ATI's when they have shortages, possibly some other companies rarely, but never Nvidia's. The board also has to be designed to use that chipset.

Originally posted by TenoBellI agree at the moment there is no absolute need for SLI or Crossfire. In many ways it will come down to having software that is able to take advantage of it.

It appears the trend for software is pushing more of the work off onto the GPU. A trend Apple has been going along with OS X and its imaging APIs for real time rendering.

Apple may not adopt SLI. But it leaves itself quite vulnerable selling $2000 to $3000 workstations that are not SLI capable when its competitors will be selling them.

There isn't much the average computer user can do with 64 bit processing but I've heard of several high end Hollywood VFX houses that have bought lots of AMD 64 bit servers and use 64 bit versions of Linux and 64 bit XP.

Its a natural that visual and media content creators would quickly adopt multiple GPU for faster rendering.

For example:

This is a natural market where Apple has an advantage but people will choose something else if Apple does not offer what they need.

edit:

On top of all of that this can be a system that run OS X, Vista, and Linux

If you are talking about on screen rendering, then it isn't needed in the content business, because all of the content on the screen is 2D. The rendering is done in the cpu's.

While it has been shown that rendering CAN be faster in some high end gpu's, it isn't useful for that kind of production work, because all of the software is written for cpu rendering, using custom software and routines. The rendering done by the boards is not as refined as that required for Pixar, as an example. I doubt that the boards can be linked as a networked rendering farm either. That alone would make them useless for the task.

Originally posted by melgrossThe problem is that we don't know what Apple and IBM had in their agreements. Jobs referred to the fact that we didn't have a G5 laptop, as an indicator that IBM wasn't up to the job. They did come out with the low power G5 chip, too little, too late. And Freescale wasn't interested at all.

I admit that the situation with Intel is different Apple isn't requiring them to make a chipset just for themselves. But, none of Intel's chipsets support SLI, that's my point. And only some chipsets work with certain cpu's. Onboard graphics or no onboard graphics.

I'm saying that if Apple wants SLI, they will have to design and make their own mobo, Intel won't make it for them, because it isn't one of their products. That's almost like asking Intel to make a board with an AMD socket. Not quite, but the same idea.

But Apple isn't using a standard intel motherboard, and Apples motherboard isn't one of their regular products. It's not like everybody has full access to one. Intel isn't going to be supplying DELL with Apple motherboards, because part of the design is coming from Apple. (that's my take on their situation) Like has been said. Intel has a team they put together for their Apple products, and Apple also has engineers, and designers working closely with them. The Apple motherboard isn't a stock intel motherboard. It's not like Apple is pushing intel into doing anything out of the ordinary. They are working together cooperatively on a product for Apple. So if you think that if Apple said we are going to need two full speed 16x PCI-E lanes and added it to their design plan intel would flat turn them down, and say we wont manufacture it if that is in your design then I say we will just have to agree to disagree.

No. Gamers like a PC they can fiddle with. Some high-end PCs, such as random crap from AlienWare, fit that bill. An Apple Power Mac does not. An IBM workstation does not. A Sun workstation does not. A Mac Pro likely will not.

Why won't a Mac Pro? It's a PC pretty much identical to any other high-end PC: the processor is replaceable with a standard socket, videocards etc as well. Apparently it hasn't struck you yet that Macs are PCs.

Originally posted by ChuckerHow do you know that? You and I both would like it to be that way, but do we know it's the case? It's pure speculation at this point.

Judging from Apple's past decisions, it doesn't seem that likely.

"Judging by "Apple's past decisions", the 500-dollar, lowest-end computer that Apple has ever offered has a swappable processor socket. You can put unreleased 64-bit Intel test CPUs in, and it works with little to no configuration. If you can do this with what is essentially the least upgradeable computer in the desktop lineup, do you really think you won't be able to with the Mac Pro? And of course there won't be a high-end Apple machine without an upgradeable GPU; there's never been one.

Quote:

Originally posted by Chucker
Probably, yes. What about the firmware, though? What makes you think this won't continue to be an issue?

Videocards to the best of my knowledge don't need to be flashed based on EFI versus BIOS, and the videocards in the iMac and Mac Pro are standard X1600 notebook cards with no visible Apple branding or difference from PC versions.